I think this is worth a separate post.

From comments … `All life forms are driven to survive and reproduce` is a statement that would be met with almost universal approval. But, this morning, with me, it jangled something horrible.

I think what it is … is that is said, as though their are limits as to what `all life forms` are `driven to`.

Most people will be happy to stop at `driven to survive and reproduce`.

Some will go as far as `driven to eat, drink and try and stay warm`.
We often stop there, because these are `basic needs` (or somesuch)


What we have here is a hidden, not-talked-about, soul / free-willy type thing.

(it is part of the `modern science` non-explanation on this subject).

It is imagined, that a baby is born (all natural like) … and at some point later, either all-of-a-rush as `a soul` or more slowly as a developing `person` takes-over that `natural body` and `becomes something that `drives` that natural body (like it was a car, or something).

This is total shite.

Modern people seem to believe less-and-less (do they~?) in the `soul` idea … but, not in any sort of positive understanding way, but a vague sort-of not-really-thought-about-it way believe in the `thing` that `develops` to drive the body.

Where is it~? What is it~? No fucking idea, but as no one asks … no fucking care~!


When you get as far as `the brain done it` there stops being any excuse for ignorance.

If the brain drives the body to survive and reproduce … then it is sponkingly obvious that it also drives it to become an economist (and everything else).

`Survive and reproduce` are not at … say, the black end of a ruler of `all shades` from black to white (or vice versa).

Being a human is not like that. The ruler is the same shade all-the-way-across.

Everything we do, down to the smallest thing, is driven by the same `force` that drives `us` to survive and reproduce.

If it was `useful` to pretend that the ruler was `calibrated` maybe I could understand what is going on … but I don’t see it as useful at all.

Bottom-line … If you accept that humans are driven to survive and reproduce, it is only logical that they are also driven (or not) to write comments to OTP.

The only way the above falls, is if you want to push for `a soul` (or `something` that takes-over the driving of the body).



  • Axionication3

    Good post. Pretty much the crux of the ‘matter’.
    Have you ever felt (moments) like you were going all non-dual funky like (Tony/Lisa like)?

    • I think that I had a couple-of-hours of `enlightenment` when I was 25, but I don’t know if that has affected the subsequent years much.
      Basically … no.

      It is I suppose, what would be called (stupidly) an `intellectual` knowing, rather than a `spiritual` knowing … and `therefore~?` I don’t `feel moved` to `preach` about it.

      • amoeba

        How is young Lisa doing?

        Has she found a suitable non-dualistic breeding partner yet?

        • I am not sure.
          She seems to be single (but in love with dog), but there is the cloggy-man somewhere in her life.

          Living in France, which is probably a good idea for her.

      • Axionictaion3

        I understand your reply.

  • amoeba

    The whole thing chugs around on many different levels.

    If we start small, then the brain has no idea about or control over the 30 trillion cells that comprise a human bean. And most of them do not survive longer than a month, but are frantically dividing and replicating. Just doin’ their thing, because there is no other thing they can do.

    Add in another 40 trillion bacteria that we carry around, all jus’ doin’ their thing.

    Ramp it up and somehow a bunch of these cells has coagulated into a brian and associated nervous system. (For some reason these cells are apparently much longer lived.).

    Having a brian is clearly a huge advantage to survival and therefore to breeding, as it allows us to adapt and use the environment to our benefit.

    This is a process of experimentation. The reward is feeling good, which makes us do more, or feeling bad, which makes us do less. So we tend towards the “feeling good” bits, which, if they don’t kill us, will over a long time lead to that behaviour becoming part of the “genetic behaviour code”.


    1. I agree with your conclusion.

    2. We are driven to experimentation as it will increase our survival chances as a race.

    3. Part of that experimentation gives us a “good feeling” so we are driven to keep doing those things, for example posting on OTP.

    The big question remaining is.

    “Will my genes stand a better chance of survival by posting on OTP?”

    Probably not, but they cannot reason, they just keep plugging away. Maybe one or two of the zillions of experiments made every day will increase their survival?

    • I found that reading `The Selfish Gene` knocked me off the singular point-of-view … that is looking from the `human-centric` position.
      Having done that early enough … I can readily see things from different perspectives.

      Seen from the genes position, everything appears so much more logical than from the `human` point-of-view (which is wildly illogical).

      Take just the `reproduction` part of your equation. It is senseless from the human-centric point-of-view.

  • axel1million

    This one is quite good.
    Essentially it can be seen that the brain is making everything up.
    Reality is nothing like the brain tells us. That itself almost explains everything, by explaining we have no clue about anything out side of our perception.
    The only thing we know is our perception and ‘who knows’ that?

    • axel1million

      I was going to add something to this this morning, but I think I will leave it there(after the comma is a kind of Mystic style group of words I previously would not have used… interesting?).
      Everything we read, see and do is programming us!

    • Axionication3

      Nice one.

    • Could it be … that this lot, are (like so many others) being fucked-up by the language.
      `Is it a particle, or is it a wave~?`
      Surely after a couple of hundred years you get the idea that it may be neither (and the whole `language thing` is holding you back).

      • axel1million

        Yes they are.
        I think its the ‘best they can do’.
        Its difficult to define something that’s not there(so that doesn’t sound right?Of course there is something there? Is there not?)
        So there is a particle! What is half of the particle?
        So there is a wave! From whence does come the wave?

        • I don’t think it is `ignorance` as too much has been thrown at this shit over the years.

          There were a couple of things (probably more than that) that jangled with me in the video.

          Still they go on about satellite descriptions of `atoms` (molecules/whatever) … and I can’t stop myself thinking that this is complete arse.

          He talked of waves … and mentioned real waves in the sea, as justification for interference being wavelike. It seemed to me that, either they have not advanced their thinking much over the decades … or, he is dumbing-it-down to talk to a `non scientist`.


          When `tripping` … I have just about the same `trip` every time.
          I am `being` happily away, but always knowing that I am part of a Big Trick and that something is going to come up to trick me into seeing the Trick.
          The `trick` always comes … and I see the `Trick` … but then the Trick always develops into `being` again, with, as before, the knowing that I am part of a Trick (and that the Trick was just a trick) … and … round and round it goes … trick after Trick after trick.

          • axel1million

            No not so much ignorance, just the best they can do to put into words.
            We don’t realise how limited language is(or how limited is language, or how language is limited).

            Yes I(think) know the trick within a trick mental process. Its sort of like that there is nothing ultimate to see! Does the seeing of the trick show the trick first or the trick of the trick?

            • I just screwed-up and a longish reply to you vanished.
              Anyway, better I keep it short, because this is like listening to other people’s dreams (boring).

              The `revelation` is that the `old life` was a trick … not how the trick was done.

              • axel1million

                I thought you had seen that it was a ‘trick within a trick’. That the revealing of the trick had shown you the old life was a trick and outside the trick was another one?

                Tricky stuff!

                • Axionication3

                  The Graziano/Chalmers crowd (we hung with them a while back).


                  • axel1million

                    Yes I recall, we did.

                    Good article. There never are any answers… not go down that road or we’ll be back at U.G!

                    • Axionication3

                      Ted dude throws in some math references for us.


                    • axel1million

                      Interesting, I have heard his theory before.
                      Emergent properties are things which arise that we give names to.

                      I would ask him what patterns and why?

                  • I’m reading the article now.

                • Almost that.

                  It goes from (cut in somewhere)
                  326. a life where one suspects something
                  327. the `reveal`
                  328. a life `revealed`
                  329. a life where one suspects something
                  330. the `reveal`
                  … and on …

                  • axel1million

                    I see.
                    Come time, there would be a point where a “a life ‘revealed'” would become “‘the reveal'”?

                    • Yes … (although I am getting confused with it now) …
                      perhaps no.

                      The `life revealed` is kinda `the glow` after the trick of the old life has been revealed to be a trick … so the `new life` has `a glow` of THIS IS THE REAL LIFE … but doubt comes in, and suspicion that this `iteration` is soon going to be revealed to be a trick … and it is revealed to be so …
                      Which goes into the glow again, until the glow dies out.

                      It is wrapped around – `I am right` or `I was right`.
                      There is annoyance at `the trick` showing up the sham of the `old life` … but also a pride in `knowing it was coming`.
                      It is all, what would be called, `building ego and destroying ego.

                      The `trick` is generally new, but `cycle` is always the same.
                      Variations on a theme of `this is The Real One` and then `oops` … `no its not`.

                      Same thing every time.
                      From when I was fourteen and sniffing petrol … to last year on magic mushrooms.

                    • axel1million

                      That’s it!
                      The sense I get is that there is nothing solid at any level. We look up at the sky and see the clouds and the blue of the sky. Then its seen there is nothing between us and empty space, then, the moon, then the sun, then the nearest galaxy, then everything.
                      Translated down to the human level.
                      There are our beliefs, they are not solid. If we look past them we see they were just clouds floating past. Then a big(belief) thing like the moon, well,that’s solid enough? No its nothing, but look the sun that’s the real deal I can’t see past it? No, look over here, the sun is nothing also.
                      So where is the thing?
                      There is no-thing, just apparent things and we’ll have to make do with them – they are all we have.

                    • That is all very well and good … all that `no thing out there` …
                      … that could be just called solipsism …
                      What is it called when there is looking and finding `no thing in here`?

                    • axel1million

                      The thing is(as far as I can tell) that the apparent thing is the thing – like software.
                      This is where the ‘evidence’ is pointing.

                      Solipsism is kinda crazy shit – then again reality is just as crazy!

                    • axel1million
                    • Axionication3

                      I had Lau Tzu and his reported stuff running through my mind a few days back (when seeing this post). I know next to nothing about him and his stuff so not sure why he was ‘running’.

                    • axel1million

                      Its important, pay attention to it.